Perumi vs The Inspector General Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6133 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6133 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Perumi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 25 March, 2022

                                                                                       W.P.No.7078 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                  CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                     W.P.No.7078 of 2022

                     Perumi                                            ...Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

                     1.      The Inspector General of Registration,
                             100, Santhome High Road,
                             Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-600 028.

                     2.      The District Registrar (Registration),
                             District Registrar Office,
                             Krishnagiri.

                     3.      The Sub Registrar,
                             Sub-Registrar Office,
                             Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.                     ...Respondent


                            Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
                     Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
                     impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Refusal No.RFL/ Uthangarai/ 66/
                     2021 dated 28.07.2021 and quash the same as the same is arbitrary, illegal
                     and non-est in the eyes of the law and consequently direct the respondent to
                     register the court decree dated 06.04.2010 made in O.S.No.135 of 2005 &
                     I.A.No.538 of 2007 on the filed of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial
                     Magistrate, Uthangarai.

                                    For Petitioner      : Mr.V.Gopalsamy


                     1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                          W.P.No.7078 of 2022

                                       For Respondents        : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                         Special Government Pleader
                                                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings

of the 3rd respondent dated 28.07.2021 refusing to register the Court decree

dated 06.04.2010 made in O.S.No.135 of 2005 & I.A.No.538 of 2007 on the

file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai and for a

consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to register the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the property in S.No.59/9 situated

at Elavambadi Village, Uthangarai Tauk Kirshnagiri District was owned by

the petitioner's family. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Partion Suit in

O.S.No.135 of 2005 & I.A.No.538 of 2007, on the file of the District

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai and the said suit was decreed

on 06.04.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.E.P.No41 of 2010 and the

same was ordered on 29.07.2015, directing the registrar to register the

petitioner's share of property in her favour as per the order dated

06.04.2010. Thereby, the petitioner presented the application before the 3rd

respondent for registration on 28.07.2021, however, the 3rd respondent

refused to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Uthangarai/

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7078 of 2022

66/ 2021 dated 28.07.2021 on the ground that the decree has been presented

for registration after 8 months, which is contrary to the period stipulated in

Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the present Writ

Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is

prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the deed

through Court decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as

reason for not registering the same is not sustainable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision

of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Lingeswaran

vs The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, and in the

said decision the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier decisions

reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68 (A.K.Gnanasankar vs. Joint -II Sub

Registrar, Cuddalore) and 2019 (3) MLJ 571 (S.Sarvothaman vs. The

Sub-Registrar, Oulgarpet ), wherein the Court held that, the Court decree

is not a compulsorily registrable document and the option lies with the party

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7078 of 2022

in such circumstances. He would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of

the above decision, which are extracted hereunder:

“6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959 AP 626, has held that a decree/order passed by a competent Court is not compulsorily registrable document and the party cannot be compelled to get the document registered when there is no obligation cast upon him to register the same. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint- II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68, has held that, a decree is a permanent record of Court and the limitation prescribed for presentation of the document under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not applicable to a decree presented for registration.

7. The above judgments have been followed in number of judgments of this Court and recently another Division Bench of this Court in S.Sarvothaman Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret reported in (2019) 3 MLJ 571 has held that, as the Court decree is not a compulsorily registerable document and the limitation prescribed under the Registration Act would not stand attracted for registering any decree. The relevant portion of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7078 of 2022

judgment reads as follows:

"21. By applying the decision in the case of Padala Satyanarayana Murthy to the facts of the case, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that a court decree is not compulsorily registerable and that the option lies with the party. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act would not stand attracted."

8. The above judgment was followed in Anitha Vs. The Inspector of Registration in W.P.No.24857 of 2014 dated 01.03.2021, wherein it is held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on the ground of limitation.

9. In view of the above settled position of law, the respondent Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the decree on the ground that it is presented beyond the period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act. In such circumstances, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7078 of 2022

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submitted that the said application was rejected under section

23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court

decree which when presented was not entertained citing delay in

submission. It is to be pointed out that this Court in a catena of decisions

had held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on

the ground of limitation. That being the case, the facts in the present case

are identical to Ligeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely

attracted. Therefore, the rejection order is wholly in contravention of the

order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra).